Questions On The Law And Criminal Justice System

In this experiment we used a polygraph, which examined heart rate, respiratory rate, and electrodermal activity (EDA), and tested its ability to perform as a reliable lie detector. Physiology data such as skin conductance, blood pressure, heart rate, and respiration can be utilized in polygraph tests (Lewis and Cuppari 2009). A polygraph measures the changes in physiological measures, or arousal, to a set of questions given to the participant. There are two main types of questions utilized during a polygraph: The Control Questions Test (CQT) and the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT). The CQT usually has a subject, in most cases a suspect in a case or criminal, is asked two sets of questions, control questions and relevant questions. Within criminal

The Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda Warning, were derived from the 5th and 6th amendments in which they guarantee all people who are taken into arrest the right to trial, council, and to be appointed a lawyer. Although not explicitly expressed in the constitution, the Miranda rights provide the necessary precautions for self-incrimination and proper trial by providing those who have been arrested or incarcerated a brief description of the rights the individual is guaranteed to. It also provides the means for lawfully gathering information such as confessions and testimony from criminals for use in a court and trial. Often individuals who are taken into custody are not fully aware of one’s rights, especially the right to maintain silent, and this in turn can lead to information being given that may lead to the accused to be unlawfully tried and placed in jail for long periods of time.

Miranda Rights: Rights that provide protection from self-incrimination and confer the right to an attorney, of which citizens must be informed before police arrest and interrogation, established in Miranda v. Arizona.

e Report, for Resource Utilisation, Witness Accuracy and Psychological Methods for Detection and Successful Prosecution.

Determining a false confession proves difficult due to the multitude of dimensions involved. According to Kassin and Wrightsman’s (1985) survey of the literature, there are three main types of false confessions—voluntary, coerced-compliant, and coerced-internalized. Unlike coerced false confessions, voluntary false confessions arise as a result of someone willingly turning themselves into the police with an account of their crime (McCann, 1998). Voluntary false confessions can result from multiple motives, including an internalized need for punishment or to save someone else’s face. In contrast, coerced false confessions directly result from police interrogations. While coerced-compliant confessions are made to avoid interrogation, escape the stressful situation, or achieve some other reward, coerced-internalized confessions emerge when a suspects begins to

To develop an experimental paradigm to study the influence of psychologically based interrogation techniques on true and false confessions.

“It was me. I did it. I’m guilty.” It’s what every interrogator is waiting for and hoping to hear. Any variation will do the job, as either is the heart of each and every confession. The main purpose of an interrogation is to elicit the truth from a suspect that they believe has lied or is guilty of the crime they’re investigating. They are looking for a confession. Confessions are the most damaging and influential piece of evidence of the suspect’s guilt that the state can use against a defendant (Leo, 2009). It makes sense. People instinctively trust confessions. After all, why would someone confess to a crime they did not commit? The mere idea that someone would admit to committing a crime they did not do boggles the mind simply because it just does not seem rational. However, the fact remains that false confessions do happen, and for a multitude of different reasons. This paper will begin with an examination of false confessions in general, then focus on the different types of false confessions, including what leads to their occurrence, and will conclude by discussing ways in which false confessions could be avoided.

Once introduced as evidence, a confession causes a negative chain reaction in the justice system and law enforcers and justice officials often include their biases in their judgment, which leads to justice miscarriage. The process of false confession starts with the law enforcement officials (Leo & Davis, 2011). According to Kassin, Meissner, and ReNorwick (2005), investigators have a high confidence in knowing a true confession but their accuracy is the same as that of the public. The investigators do not see deception but rather they infer

The Miranda rights were created in 1966 by the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. The purpose of the Miranda warning is to protect all suspects’ “Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions”(Miranda Rights, 2009). The Miranda rights are done once an arrest has been made or before the questioning occurs and then an officer is free to ask questions for the investigation. The suspect can either remain silent or answer the questions being asked. Suspects must be told their constitutional right to have an attorney and against self- incrimination before the questions.

In this article, Richard Leo examines false confession cases, investigating the wonder of false confessions, the effect of confessional proof, and the reasons for false confessions. Police interrogations can be intimidating to people who are in desperate situations. Some people are bullied into making false confessions and end up getting convicted, even though they are innocent. If the Court convicts someone using testimonies and confessions, the defendant didn’t get the right to a fair trial.

Across the United States, city and county governments seek to gain revenue through the illegitimate jailing of indigent defendants who cannot afford to pay the large and cumbersome fines that accompany committing (seemingly petty) crimes— such as missing court dates, a requirement for classes such as anger management, the list goes on. Indeed, the practice of debtor’s prison has long been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court within the United States, yet a contemporary form of debtor’s prison has begun to take form which targets vulnerable populations. When an individual commits a crime, they are to be justly punished. If this punishment consists of a fine, that fine is expected to be paid accordingly; if the fined individual simply does not have the time or money to pay these steep fines, however, they are sent to jail indefinitely. This rise of financial burden imposed upon the liberty of low income citizens through the fining, issuing of fees, and jail time sanctioned by the criminal justice system has resulted in new, illegitimate, and ostensibly unconstitutional forms of debtor’s prisons that permeate contemporary U.S. society. Jeopardizing the liberty of vulnerable populations, based upon material inequality and extraction of necessary resources, only does one thing within a society: continue the cycle of poverty and increase the poor’s dependence upon the rich for their liberty, equality and most importantly, survival.

The population of offenders in correctional institutions in the United States is at an alarming amount, and it doesn’t have to be. Each year 7 million offenders are absorbed and expelled from correctional institutions and jails, placing a heavy burden on the criminal justice system (Morgan, 2011). Many of these offenders will recidivate, and with rates that are estimated at 70%, means 4.9 million will eventually return to the criminal justice system, creating a vicious cycle of arrest, re-arrest, and imprisonment (Morgan, 2011). Among this population are offenders with mental illnesses that need to be addressed, or specialized care that needs to be administered. Without the support of mental health programs such as mental health court,

As a result of the Miranda case the police must give warnings to all suspects when they have to answer questions related to a criminal case. The Miranda warnings are based on the Fifth Amendment right to be protected from self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment that gives all suspects the right to have an attorney. The Miranda Warnings consist of telling suspects that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to have an attorney present before and during questioning, and if they can’t afford an attorney one will be provided for them.

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.

When you are arrested, if you aren’t given you Miranda Rights, then questioning after an arrest, can be inadmissible at trial (“Advisement of Rights”, np). That is part of what Due Process is. Due Process is the right that you have to be given all of your rights and the court has to execute all of your rights before you can be punished. Another right is no cruel or unusual